Advertisement

Knowledge-Based Energy Functions for Computational Studies of Proteins

  • Xiang Li
  • Jie Liang
Part of the BIOLOGICAL AND MEDICAL PHYSICS BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING book series (BIOMEDICAL)

Abstract

This chapter discusses theoretical framework and methods for developing knowledge-based potential functions essential for protein structure prediction, protein-protein interaction, and protein sequence design.We discuss in some detail the Miyazawa-Jernigan contact statistical potential, distance-dependent statistical potentials, as well as geometric statistical potentials. We also describe a geometric model for developing both linear and nonlinear potential functions by optimization. Applications of knowledge-based potential functions in protein-decoy discrimination, in protein-protein interactions, and in protein design are then described. Several issues of knowledge-based potential functions are finally discussed.

Keywords

Potential Function Protein Structure Prediction Residue Type Residue Pair Cargo Protein 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adamian, L., Jackups, R., Binkowski, T.A., and Liang, J. 2003. Higher-order interhelical spatial interactions in membrane proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 327:251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamian, L., and Liang, J. 2001. Helix—helix packing and interfacial pairwise interactions of residues in membrane proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 311:891–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adamian, L., and Liang, J. 2002. Interhelical hydrogen bonds and spatial motifs in membrane proteins: Polar clamps and serine zippers. Proteins 47:209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amzel, L.M. 2000. Calculation of entropy changes in biological processes: Folding, binding, and oligomerization. Methods Enzymol. 323:167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anfinsen, C.B. 1973. Principles that govern the folding of protein chains. Science 181:223–230.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anfinsen, C., Haber, E., Sela, M., and White, F. 1961. The kinetics of formation of native ribonuclease during oxidation of the reduced polypeptide chain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 47:1309–1314.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bastolla, U., Farwer, J., Knapp, E.W., and Vendruscolo, M. 2001. How to guarantee optimal stability for most representative structures in the protein data bank. Proteins, 44:79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bastolla, U., Vendruscolo, M., and Knapp, E.W. 2000. A statistical mechanical method to optimize energy functions for protein folding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:3977–3981.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ben-Naim, A. 1997. Statistical potentials extracted from protein structures: Are these meaningful potentials? J. Chem. Phys. 107:3698–3706.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berkelaar, M. 2004. LP_Solve package. URL http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/algorith/implement/lpsolve/implement.shtmlGoogle Scholar
  11. Betancourt, M.R., and Thirumalai, D. 1999. Pair potentials for protein folding: Choice of reference states and sensitivity of predicted native states to variations in the interaction schemes. Protein Sci. 8:361–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bienkowska, J.R., Rogers, R.G., and Smith, T.F. 1999. Filtered neighbors threading. Proteins 37:346–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bordner, A.J., and Abagyan, R.A. 2004. Large-scale prediction of protein geometry and stability changes for arbitrary single point mutations. Proteins 57:400–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buchete, N.V., Straub, J.E., and Thirumalai, D. 2003. Anisotropic coarse-grained statistical potentials improve the ability to identify nativelike protein structures. J. Chem. Phys. 118:7658–7671.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buchete, N.V., Straub, J.E., and Thirumalai, D. 2004. Orientational potentials extracted from protein structures improve native fold recognition. Protein Sci. 13:862–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burges, C.J.C. 1998. A tutorial on support vector machines for pattern recognition. Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 2. URL /papers/Burges98.ps.gzGoogle Scholar
  17. Carter, C., Jr., LeFebvre, B., Cammer, S., Tropsha, A., and Edgell, M. 2001. Four-body potentials reveal protein-specific correlations to stability changes caused by hydrophobic core mutations. J. Mol. Biol. 311:625–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chan, H.S., and Dill, K.A. 1990. Origins of structure in globular proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87:6388–6392.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chiu, T.L., and Goldstein, R.A. 1998. Optimizing energy potentials for success in protein tertiary structure prediction. Folding Des. 3:223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Czaplewski, C., Rodziewicz-Motowidlo, S., Liwo, A., Ripoll, D.R., Wawak, R.J., and Scheraga, H.A. 2000. Molecular simulation study of cooperativity in hydrophobic association. Protein Sci. 9:1235–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Czyzyk, J., Mehrotra, S., Wagner, M., and Wright, S. 2004. PCx package. URL http://www-fp.mcs.anl.gov/otc/Tools/PCx/Google Scholar
  22. Dahiyat, B.I., and Mayo, S.L. 1997. De novo protein design: Fully automated sequence selection. Science 278:82–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Deutsch, J.M., and Kurosky, T. 1996. New algorithm for protein design. Phys. Rev. Lett. 76:323–326.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. DeWitte, R.S., and Shakhnovich, E.I. 1996. SMoG: de novo design method based on simple, fast and accurate free energy estimates. 1. Methodology and supporting evidence. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 118:11733–11744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dima, R.I., Banavar, J.R., and Maritan, A. 2000. Scoring functions in protein folding and design. Protein Sci. 9:812–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dobbs, H., Orlandini, E., Bonaccini, R., and Seno, F. 2002. Optimal potentials for predicting inter-helical packing in transmembrane proteins. Proteins 49:342–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Duan, Y., and Kollman, P.A. 1998. Pathways to a protein folding intermediate observed in a 1-microsecond simulation in aqueous solution. Science 282:740–744.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eastwood, M.P., and Wolynes, P.G. 2001. Role of explicitly cooperative interactions in protein folding funnels: A simulation study. J. Chem. Phys. 114:4702–4716.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Edelsbrunner, H. 1987. Algorithms in Combinatorial Geometry. Berlin, Springer-Verlag.MATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Fain, B., Xia, Y., and Levitt, M. 2002. Design of an optimal Chebyshev-expanded discrimination function for globular proteins. Protein Sci. 11:2010–2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Finkelstein, A.V., Badretdinov, A.Y., and Gutin, A.M. 1995. Why do protein architectures have boltzmann-like statistics? Proteins 23:142–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Friedrichs, M.S., and Wolynes, P.G. 1989. Toward protein tertiary structure recognition by means of associative memory hamiltonians. Science 246:371–373.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gan, H., Tropsha, A., and Schlick, T. 2001. Lattice protein folding with two and four-body statistical potentials. Proteins 43:161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gilis, D. 2004. Protein decoy sets for evaluating energy functions. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 21:725–736.Google Scholar
  35. Gilis, D., and Rooman, M. 1996. Stability changes upon mutation of solvent-accessible residues in proteins evaluated by database-derived potentials. J. Mol. Biol. 257:1112–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gilis, D., and Rooman, M. 1997. Predicting protein stability changes upon mutation using database-derived potentials: Solvent accessibility determines the importance of local versus non-local interactions along the sequence. J. Mol. Biol. 272:276–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Godzik, A., Kolinski, A., and Skolnick, J. 1992. Topology fingerprint approach to the inverse protein folding problem. J. Mol. Biol. 227:227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Godzik, A., and Skolnick, J. 1992. Sequence—structure matching in globular proteins: Application to supersecondary and tertiary structure determination. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89:12098–12102.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Goldstein, R., Luthey-Schulten, Z.A., and Wolynes, P.G. 1992. Protein tertiary structure recognition using optimized hamiltonians with local interactions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89:9029–9033.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Guerois, R., Nielsen, J.E., and Serrano, L. 2002. Predicting changes in the stability of proteins and protein complexes: A study of more than 1000 mutations. J. Mol. Biol. 320:369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hao, M.H., and Scheraga, H.A. 1996. How optimization of potential functions affects protein folding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:4984–4989.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hao, M.H., and Scheraga, H.A. 1999. Designing potential energy functions for protein folding. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 9:184–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hill, R.B., Raleigh, D.P., Lombardi, A., and DeGrado, W.F. 2000. De novo design of helical bundles as models for understanding protein folding and function. Acc. Chem. Res. 33:745–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hoppe, C., and Schomburg, D. 2005. Prediction of protein thermostability with a direction- and distance-dependent knowledge-based potential. Protein Sci. 14:2682–2692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hu, C., Li, X., and Liang, J. 2004. Developing optimal non-linear scoring function for protein design. Bioinformatics 20:3080–3098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jackups, R., Jr. and Liang, J. 2005. Interstrand pairing patterns in β-barrel membrane proteins: The positive-outside rule, ar omatic rescue, and strand registration prediction. J. Mol. Biol. 354:979–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Janicke, R. 1987. Folding and association of proteins. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 49:117–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jernigan, R.L., and Bahar, I. 1996 Structure-derived potentials and protein simulations. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 6:195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Karmarkar, N. 1984. A new polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming. Combinatorica 4:373–395.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. Karplus, M., and Petsko, G.A. 1990. Molecular dynamics simulations in biology. Nature 347:631–639.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Khatun, J., Khare, S.D., and Dokholyan, N.V. 2004. Can contact potentials reliably predict stability of proteins? J. Mol. Biol. 336:1223–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kocher, J.A., Rooman, M.J., and Wodak, S.J. 1994. Factors influencing the ability of knowledge-based potentials to identify native sequence—structure matches. J. Mol. Biol. 235:1598–1613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Koehl, P., and Levitt, M. 1999a. De novo protein design. I. In search of stability and specificity. J. Mol. Biol. 293:1161–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Koehl, P., and Levitt, M. 1999b. De novo protein design. II. Plasticity of protein sequence. J. Mol. Biol. 293:1183–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Koretke, K.K., Luthey-Schulten, Z., and Wolynes, P.G. 1996. Self-consistently optimized statistical mechanical energy functions for sequence structure alignment. Protein Sci. 5:1043–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Koretke, K.K., Luthey-Schulten, Z., and Wolynes, P.G. 1998. Self-consistently optimized energy functions for protein structure prediction by molecular dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:2932–2937.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kortemme, T., and Baker, D. 2002. A simple physical model for binding energy hot spots in protein—protein complexes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:14116–14121.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kortemme, T., Kim, D.E., and Baker, D. 2004. Computational alanine scanning of protein—protein interfaces. Sci. STKE 2004:pl2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kortemme, T., Morozov, A.V., and Baker, D. 2003. An orientation-dependent hydrogen bonding potential improves prediction of specificity and structure for proteins and protein—protein complexes. J. Mol. Biol. 326:1239–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Krishnamoorthy, B., and Tropsha, A. 2003. Development of a four-body statistical pseudo-potential to discriminate native from non-native protein conformations. Bioinformatics 19:1540–1548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kuhlman, B., Dantas, G., Ireton, G.C., Varani, G., Stoddard, B.L., and Baker, D. 2003. Design of a novel globular protein fold with atomic-level accuracy. Science 302:1364–1368.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lazaridis, T., and Karplus, M. 2000. Effective energy functions for protein structure prediction. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 10:139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lee, K.H., Xie, D., Freire, E., and Amzel, L.M. 1994. Estimation of changes in side chain configurational entropy in binding and folding: General methods and application to helix formation. Proteins 20:68–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lemer, C.M.R, Rooman, M.J., and Wodak, S.J. 1995. Protein-structure prediction by threading methods—Evaluation of current techniques. Proteins 23:337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Levitt, M., and Warshel, A. 1975. Computer simulation of protein folding. Nature 253:694–698.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Li, H., Helling, R., Tang, C., and Wingreen, N. 1996. Emergence of preferred structures in a simple model of protein folding. Science 273:666–669.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Li, H. Tang, C., and Wingreen, N.S. 1997. Nature of driving force for protein folding: A result from analyzing the statistical potential. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79:765–768.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Li, X., Hu, C., and Liang, J. 2003. Simplicial edge representation of protein structures and alpha contact potential with confidence measure. Proteins 53:792–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Li, X., and Liang, J. 2005a. Computational design of combinatorial peptide library for modulating protein—protein interactions. Pacific Symposium of Biocomputing.Google Scholar
  70. Li, X., and Liang, J. 2005b. Geometric cooperativity and anti-cooperativity of three-body interactions in native proteins. Proteins 60:46–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Liang, J., and Dill, K.A. 2001. Are proteins well-packed? Biophys. J. 81:751–766.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Liu, S., Zhang, C., Zhou, H., and Zhou, Y. 2004. A physical reference state unifies the structure-derived potential of mean force for protein folding and binding. Proteins 56:93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Looger, L.L., Dwyer, M.A., Smith, J.J., and Hellinga, H.W. 2003. Computational design of receptor and sensor proteins with novel functions. Nature 423:185–190.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lu, H., and Skolnick, J. 2001. A distance-dependent atomic knowledge-based potential for improved protein structure selection. Proteins 44:223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Maiorov, V.N., and Crippen, G.M. 1992. Contact potential that recognizes the correct folding of globular proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 227:876–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. McConkey, B.J., Sobolev, V., and Edelman, M. 2003. Discrimination of native protein structures using atom-atom contact scoring. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:3215–3220.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Méndez, R., Leplae, R., Lensink, M.F., and Wodak, S.J. 2005. Assessment of capri predictions in rounds 3–5 shows progress in docking procedures. Proteins 60:150–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mészáros, C.S. 1996. Fast Cholesky factorization for interior point methods of linear programming. Comput. Math. Appl. 31:49–51.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Micheletti, C., Seno, F., Banavar, J.R., and Maritan, A. 2001. Learning effective amino acid interactions through iterative stochastic techniques. Proteins 42: 422–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Mirny, L.A., and Shakhnovich, E.I. 1996. How to derive a protein folding potential? A new approach to an old problem. J. Mol. Biol. 264:1164–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mitchell, B.O., Laskowski, R.A., Alex, A., and Thornton, J.M. 1999. BLEEP: Potential of mean force describing protein—ligand interactions: II. Calculation of binding energies and comparison with experimental data. J. Comput. Chem. 20:1177–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Miyazawa, S., and Jernigan, R.L. 1985. Estimation of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: Quasi-chemical approximation. Macromolecules 18:534–552.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  83. Miyazawa, S., and Jernigan, R.L. 1996. Residue—residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term. J. Mol. Biol. 256:623–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Miyazawa, S., and Jernigan, R.L. 2005. How effective for fold recognition is a potential of mean force that includes relative orientations between contacting residues in proteins? J. Chem. Phys. 122:024901.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  85. Momany, F.A., McGuire, R.F., Burgess, A.W., and Scheraga, H.A. 1975. Energy parameters in polypeptides. VII. Geometric parameters, partial atomic charges, nonbonded interactions, hydrogen bond interactions, and intrinsic torsional potentials for the naturally occurring amino acids. J. Phys. Chem. 79:2361–2381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Muegge, I., and Martin, Y.C. 1999. A general and fast scoring function for protein—ligand interactions: A simplified potential approach. J. Med. Chem. 42:791–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Munson, P.J., and Singh, R.K. 1997. Statistical significance of hierarchical multi-body potential based on Delaunay tessellation and their application in sequence—structure alignment. Protein Sci. 6:1467–1481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Nishikawa, K., and Matsuo, Y. 1993. Development of pseudoenergy potentials for assessing protein 3-D–1-D compatibility and detecting weak homologies. Protein Eng. 6:811–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Papadimitriou, C., and Steiglitz, K. 1998. Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity. New York, Dover.MATHGoogle Scholar
  90. Park, B.H., and Levitt, M. 1996. Energy functions that discriminate X-ray and near-native folds from well-constructed decoys. J. Mol. Biol. 258:367–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Park, Y., Elsner, M., Staritzbichler, R., and Helms, V. 2004. Novel scoring function for modeling structures of oligomers of transmembrane alpha-helices. Proteins 57:577–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rank, J.A., and Baker, D. 1997. A desolvation barrier to hydrophobic cluster formation may contribute to the rate-limiting step in protein folding. Protein Sci. 6:347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rohl, C.A., Strauss, C.E., Misura, K.M., and Baker, D. 2004. Protein structure prediction using Rosetta. Methods Enzymol. 383:66–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Rossi, A., Micheletti, C., Seno, F., and Maritan, A. 2001. A self-consistent knowledge-based approach to protein design. Biophys. J. 80:480–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Russ, W.P., and Ranganathan, R. 2002. Knowledge-based potential functions in protein design. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 12:447–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sale, K., Faulon, J., Gray, G., Schoeniger, J.S., and Young, M. 2004. Optimal bundling of transmembrane helices using sparse distance constraints. Protein Sci. 13:2613–2627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Samudrala, R., and Levitt, M. 2000. Decoys ‘R’ Us: A database of incorrect conformations to improve protein structure prediction. Protein Sci. 9:1399–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Samudrala, R., and Moult, J. 1998. An all-atom distance-dependent conditional probability discriminatory function for protein structure prediction. J. Mol. Biol. 275:895–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Schölkopf, B., and Smola, A.J. 2002. Learning with Kernels: Support Vector Machines, Regularization, Optimization, and Beyond. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  100. Shakhnovich, E.I. 1994. Proteins with selected sequences fold into unique native conformation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 72:3907–3910.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Shakhnovich, E.I., and Gutin, A.M. 1993. Engineering of stable and fast-folding sequences of model proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90:7195–7199.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Shimizu, S., and Chan, H.S. 2001. Anti-cooperativity in hydrophobic interactions: A simulation study of spatial dependence of three-body effects and beyond. J. Chem. Phys. 115:1414–1421.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Shimizu, S., and Chan, H.S. 2002. Anti-cooperativity and cooperativity in hydrophobic interactions: Three-body free energy landscapes and comparison with implicit-solvent potential functions for proteins. Proteins 48:15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Simons, K.T., Ruczinski, I., Kooperberg, C., Fox, B., Bystroff, C., and Baker, D. 1999. Improved recognition of native-like protein structures using a combination of sequence-dependent and sequence-independent features of proteins. Proteins 34:82–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Singh, R.K., Tropsha, A., and Vaisman, I.I. 1996. Delaunay tessellation of proteins: Four body nearest-neighbor propensities of amino acid residues. J. Comput. Biol. 3:213–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sippl, M.J. 1990. Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of the main force. J. Mol. Biol. 213:167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Sippl, M.J. 1993. Boltzmann's principle, knowledge-based mean fields and protein folding. An approach to the computational determination of protein structures. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 7:473–501.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  108. Sippl, M.J. 1995. Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 5:229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Tanaka, S., and Scheraga, H.A. 1976. Medium- and long-range interaction parameters between amino acids for predicting three-dimensional structures of proteins. Macromolecules 9:945–950.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  110. Thomas, P.D., and Dill, K.A. 1996a. An iterative method for extracting energy-like quantities from protein structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:11628–11633.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Thomas, P.D., and Dill, K.A. 1996b. Statistical potentials extracted from protein structures: How accurate are they? J. Mol. Biol. 257:457–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Tobi, D., Shafran, G., Linial, N., and Elber, R. 2000. On the design and analysis of protein folding potentials. Proteins 40:71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Vanderbei, R.J. 1996. Linear Programming: Foundations and Extensions. New York, Kluwer Academic Publishers.MATHGoogle Scholar
  114. Vapnik, V. 1995. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. New York, Springer. ISBN 0-387-94559-8.MATHGoogle Scholar
  115. Vapnik, V., and Chervonenkis, A. 1964. A note on one class of perceptrons. Automation and Remote Control 25.Google Scholar
  116. Vapnik, V., and Chervonenkis, A. 1974. Theory of Pattern Recognition [in Russian]. Nauka, Moscow, (German Translation: W. Wapnik & A. Tscherwonenkis, Theorie der Zeichenerkennung, Akademie—Verlag, Berlin, 1979).Google Scholar
  117. Venclovas, E., Zemla, A., Fidelis, K., and Moult, J. 2003. Comparison of performance in successive CASP experiments. Proteins 45:163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Vendruscolo, M., and Domanyi, E. 1998. Pairwise contact potentials are unsuitable for protein folding. J. Chem. Phys. 109:11101–11108.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Vendruscolo, M., Najmanovich, R., and Domany, E. 2000. Can a pairwise contact potential stabilize native protein folds against decoys obtained by threading? Proteins 38:134–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Wodak, S.J., and Roomanm, M.J. 1993. Generating and testing protein folds. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 3:247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Wolynes, P.G., Onuchic, J.N., and Thirumalai, D. 1995. Navigating the folding routes. Science 267:1619–1620.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Xia, Y., and Levitt, M. 2000. Extracting knowledge-based energy functions from protein structures by error rate minimization: Comparison of methods using lattice model. J. Chem. Phys. 113:9318–9330.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Xu, D., Lin, S.L., and Nussinov, R. 1997. Protein binding versus protein folding: The role of hydrophilic bridges in protein associations. J. Mol. Biol. 2651:68–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Zhang, C., and Kim, S.H. 2000. Environment-dependent residue contact energies for proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:2550–2555.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Zhang, C., Liu, S., Zhou, H., and Zhou, Y. 2004a. An accurate, residue-level, pair potential of mean force for folding and binding based on the distance-scaled, ideal-gas reference state. Protein Sci. 13:400–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Zhang, C., Liu, S., Zhou, H., and Zhou, Y. 2004b. The dependence of all-atom statistical potentials on training structural database. Biophys. J. 86:3349–3358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Zhang, C., Liu, S., Zhu, Q., and Zhou, Y. 2005. A knowledge-based energy function for protein—ligand, protein—protein, and protein—DNA complexes. J. Med. Chem. 48:2325–2335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Zhang, C., Vasmatzis, G., Cornette, J.L., and DeLisi, C. 1997. Determination of atomic desolvation energies from the structures of crystallized proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 267:707–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Zheng, W., Cho, S.J., Vaisman, I.I., and Tropsha, A. 1997. A new approach to protein fold recognition based on Delaunay tessellation of protein structure. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. pp. 486–497.Google Scholar
  130. Zhou, H., and Zhou, Y. 2002. Distance-scaled, finite ideal-gas reference state improves structure-derived potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability prediction. Protein Sci. 11:2714–2726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiang Li
  • Jie Liang

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations